Aspiring toward equitable benefits from genomic advances to individuals of ancestrally diverse backgrounds.

Advancements in genomic technologies have shown remarkable promise for improving health trajectories. The Human Genome Project has catalyzed the integration of genomic tools into clinical practice, such as disease risk assessment, prenatal testing and reproductive genomics, cancer diagnostics and prognostication, and therapeutic decision making. Despite the promise of genomic technologies, their full potential remains untapped without including individuals of diverse ancestries and integrating social determinants of health (SDOHs). The NHGRI launched the 2020 Strategic Vision with ten bold predictions by 2030, including "individuals from ancestrally diverse backgrounds will benefit equitably from advances in human genomics." Meeting this goal requires a holistic approach that brings together genomic advancements with careful consideration to healthcare access as well as SDOHs to ensure that translation of genetics research is inclusive, affordable, and accessible and ultimately narrows rather than widens health disparities. With this prediction in mind, this review delves into the two paramount applications of genetic testing-reproductive genomics and precision oncology. When discussing these applications of genomic advancements, we evaluate current accessibility limitations, highlight challenges in achieving representativeness, and propose paths forward to realize the ultimate goal of their equitable applications.

Placental, maternal, fetal, and technical origins of false-positive cell-free DNA screening results.

The introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing has resulted in substantial reductions to previously accepted false-positive rates of prenatal screening. Despite this, the possibility of false-positive results remains a challenging consideration in clinical practice, particularly considering the increasing uptake of genome-wide noninvasive prenatal testing, and the subsequent increased proportion of high-risk results attributable to various biological events besides fetal aneuploidy. Confined placental mosaicism, whereby chromosome anomalies exclusively affect the placenta, is perhaps the most widely accepted cause of false-positive noninvasive prenatal testing. There remains, however, a substantial degree of ambiguity in the literature pertaining to the clinical ramifications of confined placental mosaicism and its potential association with placental insufficiency, and consequentially adverse pregnancy outcomes including fetal growth restriction. Other causes of false-positive noninvasive prenatal testing include vanishing twin syndrome, in which the cell-free DNA from a demised aneuploidy-affected twin triggers a high-risk result, technical failures, and maternal origins of abnormal cell-free DNA such as uterine fibroids or unrecognized mosaicisms. Most concerningly, maternal malignancies are also a documented cause of false-positive screening results. In this review, we compile what is currently known about the various causes of false-positive noninvasive prenatal testing.

Non-invasive prenatal screening: Testing motivations and decision making in the low-risk population.

Non-invasive prenatal screening provides a risk assessment for aneuploidies by utilizing cell-free DNA (cfDNA). It is recommended that cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA screening) be offered to all pregnant people regardless of a priori risk for aneuploidy. In the absence of an increased risk, alternative motives for electing cfDNA screening and different levels of informed decision making may arise. Therefore, our study aimed to characterize low-risk patients' motivations for cfDNA screening election, determine how often informed decisions are being made, and compare motivations between informed and uninformed decision makers. A survey that included a modified, validated measure of informed choice (MMIC) and questions to assess patients' motivations for cfDNA screening was offered at four MFM clinics following genetic counseling. It was found that 44% of participants (n = 100) made an uninformed decision about testing. Participants with private insurers were 4.25 times more likely to make an informed decision (95% CI = 1.10-16.37). Informed decision makers scored avoiding invasive procedures higher (p = 0.007) and ranked doing what family/friends desire lower (p = 0.005) than uninformed decision makers. While most participants scored receiving information about genetic conditions highest, 12% of participants reported fetal sex disclosure as a priority. However, this was not found to be associated with uninformed decision making. This study ultimately established that following genetic counseling, a low-risk population shared motivations with high-risk populations which highlights the importance of complete pre-test counseling for all. Future research should investigate the effect of modifying variables, such as socioeconomic status, on the performance of informed choice measures and critically evaluate the parameters that determine informed choice.

Cytogenetic outcomes following a failed cell-free DNA screen: a population-based retrospective cohort study of 35,146 singleton pregnancies.

BACKGROUND: Cell-free fetal DNA screening is routinely offered to pregnant individuals to screen for aneuploidies. Although cell-free DNA screening is consistently more accurate than multiple-marker screening, it sometimes fails to yield a result. These test failures and their clinical implications are poorly described in the literature. Some studies suggest that a failed cell-free DNA screening result is associated with increased likelihood of cytogenetic abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the association between a failed cell-free DNA test and common aneuploidies. The objectives were to determine: (1) the proportion of test failures on first and subsequent attempts, and (2) whether a failed cell-free DNA screen on first attempt is associated with increased likelihood of common aneuploidies (trisomies 21, 18, and 13, and sex chromosome aneuploidies). STUDY DESIGN: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study using data from Ontario's prescribed maternal and child registry, Better Outcomes Registry and Network Ontario. The study included all singleton pregnancies in Ontario with an estimated date of delivery from September 1, 2016 to March 31, 2019 that had a cell-free DNA screening record in the registry. Specific outcomes (trisomies 21, 18, and 13, and sex chromosome aneuploidies) of pregnancies with a failed cell-free DNA screen on first attempt were compared with those of pregnancies with low-risk cell-free DNA-screening results using modified Poisson regression adjusted for funding status (publicly funded vs self-paid), gestational age at screening, method of conception, and maternal age for autosomal aneuploidies. RESULTS: Our cohort included 35,146 pregnancies that had cell-free DNA screening during the study period. The overall cell-free DNA screening failure rate was 4.8% on first attempt and 2.2% after multiple attempts. An abnormal cytogenetic result for trisomies 21, 18, and 13, or sex chromosome aneuploidies was identified in 19.4% of pregnancies with a failed cell-free DNA screening for which cytogenetic testing was performed. Pregnancies with a failed cell-free DNA screen on first attempt had a relative risk of 130.3 (95% confidence interval, 64.7-262.6) for trisomy 21, trisomy 18, or trisomy 13, and a risk difference of 5.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.6-8.3), compared with pregnancies with a low-risk result. The risk of sex chromosome aneuploidies was not significantly greater in pregnancies with a failed result compared with pregnancies with a low-risk result (relative risk, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-7.9; relative difference, 1.2%; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to 3.2). CONCLUSION: Cell-free DNA screening test failures are relatively common. Although repeated testing improves the likelihood of an informative result, pregnancies with a failed cell-free DNA screen upon first attempt remain at increased risk for common autosomal aneuploidies, but not sex chromosome aneuploidies.

Obstetrical, perinatal, and genetic outcomes associated with nonreportable prenatal cell-free DNA screening results.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of nonreportable cell-free DNA screening results are uncertain, but such results may indicate poor placental implantation in some cases and be associated with adverse obstetrical and perinatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of pregnancies with nonreportable cell-free DNA screening in a cohort of patients with complete genetic and obstetrical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prespecified secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study of prenatal cell-free DNA screening for fetal aneuploidy and 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Participants who underwent cell-free DNA screening from April 2015 through January 2019 were offered participation. Obstetrical outcomes and neonatal genetic testing results were collected from 21 primary-care and referral centers in the United States, Europe, and Australia. The primary outcome was risk for adverse obstetrical and perinatal outcomes (aneuploidy, preterm birth at <28, <34, and <37 weeks' gestation, preeclampsia, small for gestational age or birthweight <10th percentile for gestational week, and a composite outcome that included preterm birth at <37 weeks, preeclampsia, small for gestational age, and stillbirth at >20 weeks) after nonreportable cell-free DNA screening because of low fetal fraction or other causes. Multivariable analyses were performed, adjusting for variables known to be associated with obstetrical and perinatal outcomes, nonreportable results, or fetal fraction. RESULTS: In total, 25,199 pregnant individuals were screened, and 20,194 were enrolled. Genetic confirmation was missing in 1165 (5.8%), 1085 (5.4%) were lost to follow-up, and 93 (0.5%) withdrew; the final study cohort included 17,851 (88.4%) participants who had cell-free DNA, fetal or newborn genetic confirmatory testing, and obstetrical and perinatal outcomes collected. Results were nonreportable in 602 (3.4%) participants. A sample was redrawn and testing attempted again in 427; in 112 (26.2%) participants, results were again nonreportable. Nonreportable results were associated with higher body mass index, chronic hypertension, later gestational age, lower fetal fraction, and Black race. Trisomy 13, 18, or 21 was confirmed in 1.6% with nonreportable tests vs 0.7% with reported results (P=.013). Rates of preterm birth at <28, 34, and 37 weeks, preeclampsia, and the composite outcome were higher among participants with nonreportable results, and further increased among those with a second nonreportable test, whereas the rate of small for gestational age infants was not increased. After adjustment for confounders, the adjusted odds ratios were 2.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.4) and 2.6 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-10.8) for aneuploidy, and 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.8) and 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.2) for the composite outcome after a first and second nonreportable test, respectively. Of the patients with nonreportable tests, 94.9% had a live birth, as opposed to 98.8% of those with reported test results (adjusted odds ratio for livebirth, 0.20 [95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.30]). CONCLUSION: Patients with nonreportable cell-free DNA results are at increased risk for a number of adverse outcomes, including aneuploidy, preeclampsia, and preterm birth. They should be offered diagnostic genetic testing, and clinicians should be aware of the increased risk of pregnancy complications.

Fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in noninvasive prenatal testing and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a nationwide retrospective cohort study of 56,110 pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive prenatal testing by cell-free DNA analysis is offered to pregnant women worldwide to screen for fetal aneuploidies. In noninvasive prenatal testing, the fetal fraction of cell-free DNA in the maternal circulation is measured as a quality control parameter. Given that fetal cell-free DNA originates from the placenta, the fetal fraction might also reflect placental health and maternal pregnancy adaptation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the association between the fetal fraction and adverse pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women with singleton pregnancies opting for noninvasive prenatal testing between June 2018 and June 2019 within the Dutch nationwide implementation study (Trial by Dutch Laboratories for Evaluation of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing [TRIDENT]-2). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess associations between fetal fraction and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Fetal fraction was assessed as a continuous variable and as <10th percentile, corresponding to a fetal fraction <2.5%. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 56,110 pregnancies. In the analysis of fetal fraction as a continuous variable, a decrease in fetal fraction was associated with increased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 2.27 [95% confidence interval, 1.89-2.78]), small for gestational age neonates <10th percentile (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37 [1.28-1.45]) and <2.3rd percentile (adjusted odds ratio, 2.63 [1.96-3.57]), and spontaneous preterm birth from 24 to 37 weeks of gestation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [1.01-1.03]). No association was found for fetal congenital anomalies (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [1.00-1.04]), stillbirth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [0.96-1.08]), or neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [0.96-1.08]). Similar associations were found for adverse pregnancy outcomes when fetal fraction was <10th percentile. CONCLUSION: In early pregnancy, a low fetal fraction is associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. These findings can be used to expand the potential of noninvasive prenatal testing in the future, enabling the prediction of pregnancy complications and facilitating tailored pregnancy management through intensified monitoring or preventive measures.

The accuracy of cell-free DNA screening for fetal segmental copy number variants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The performance of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening for microscopic copy number variants (CNVs) is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of cfDNA screening for CNVs. SEARCH STRATEGY: Articles published in EMBASE, PubMed or Web of Science before November 2022 were screened for inclusion. This protocol was registered with PROSPERO (23 March 2021, CRD42021250849) prior to initiation. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles published in English, detailing diagnostic outcomes for at least 10 high-risk CNV results with cfDNA were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The PPV was calculated and pooled with random-effects models for double-arcsine transformed proportions, using cases with diagnostic confirmation. Overall sensitivity, specificity and a summary receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve were calculated using bivariate models. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. MAIN RESULTS: In all, 63 articles were included in the final analysis, detailing 1 591 459 cfDNA results. The pooled PPV was 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.6-44.8), with substantial statistical heterogeneity (I2  = 93.9%). Bivariate meta-analysis estimated sensitivity and specificity to be 77.4% (95% CI 65.7-86.0) and 99.4% (95% CI 98.0-99.8), respectively, with an area under the summary ROC curve of 0.947 (95% CI 0.776-0.984). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of women who screen high-risk for CNVs with cfDNA will have an affected fetus. This value is of importance for screening counselling.

Experiences of receiving an increased chance of sex chromosome aneuploidy result from non-invasive prenatal testing in Australia: "A more complicated scenario than what I had ever realized".

Many non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) platforms screen for sex chromosome aneuploidy (SCA) and SCA analysis is generally included in Australia where NIPT is available as a self-funded test. Little is known about the experience of receiving an NIPT result indicating an increased chance of SCA. This study aimed to explore the experiences of people who received this result and their perspectives on the information, care, and support they received from healthcare practitioners (HCPs). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who received an NIPT result indicating an increased chance of SCA and continued their pregnancy. Most participants only had contact with a genetic counselor after receiving their result. Transcribed data were analyzed using rigorous thematic analysis to identify important patterns and themes. Participants (18 women, 2 male partners) described embarking on NIPT, primarily based on advice from their HCP and without much consideration. Consequently, participants expressed feeling unprepared for the unanticipated complexity of their NIPT result and were faced with making a time-sensitive decision about a condition they had not previously considered. While more pre-test information was desired, timely access to genetic counseling post-test assisted with adjustment to the result. These findings suggest that routinization of NIPT may be compromising informed decision-making, resulting in unpreparedness for an increased chance result. Given the increasing uptake and expanding scope of NIPT, resources should be dedicated to educating HCPs offering NIPT and ensuring timely access to genetic counseling post-result. With appropriate funding, genetics services may be able to play a central role in offering information and support to both people who undertake NIPT and their HCPs ordering the testing. Implementing a publicly funded screening program in Australia could assist with standardizing prenatal screening care pathways and consequently better access to appropriate resources.

First-trimester septated cystic hygroma, marked non-immune fetal hydrops, 45,X and coarctation of the aorta with neonatal survival.

Marked first-trimester nonimmue hydrops fetalis and 45,X with neonatal survival.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Special Statement: Checklist for pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization.

The management of pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization includes several recommended interventions at various times by various providers. To minimize the chance of errors of omission, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine presents a patient-oriented checklist summarizing the recommended management of such pregnancies.

Controversies in implementing non-invasive prenatal testing in a public antenatal care program.

Women's autonomy and an inclusive society for all individuals are highly valued in Norway. The Norwegian Biotechnology Act changed in 2020 allowing first-trimester screening and cell-free DNA for common trisomies to all pregnant women. However, implementing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in a public antenatal care program is difficult, because many patients, politicians, and medical professionals do not consider trisomy 21 a severe medical disease. Screening for trisomies at an early gestation might inevitably lead to an increase in pregnancy terminations and making cost-benefit calculations is ethically challenging. Moreover, offering NIPT to all pregnant women is debatable because of the lower prevalence of fetal trisomies in younger women. Therefore, appropriate genetic pre-test counseling is essential. Furthermore, organizing the service between private institutions and public hospitals poses another debate and challenges both quality and equal access to health services for women across the country.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #57: Evaluation and management of isolated soft ultrasound markers for aneuploidy in the second trimester: (Replaces Consults #10, Single umbilical artery, October 2010; #16, Isolated echogenic bowel diagnosed on second-trimester ultrasound, August 2011; #17, Evaluation and management of isolated renal pelviectasis on second-trimester ultrasound, December 2011; #25, Isolated fetal choroid plexus cysts, April 2013; #27, Isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, August 2013).

Soft markers were originally introduced to prenatal ultrasonography to improve the detection of trisomy 21 over that achievable with age-based and serum screening strategies. As prenatal genetic screening strategies have greatly evolved in the last 2 decades, the relative importance of soft markers has shifted. The purpose of this document is to discuss the recommended evaluation and management of isolated soft markers in the context of current maternal serum screening and cell-free DNA screening options. In this document, "isolated" is used to describe a soft marker that has been identified in the absence of any fetal structural anomaly, growth restriction, or additional soft marker following a detailed obstetrical ultrasound examination. In this document, "serum screening methods" refers to all maternal screening strategies, including first-trimester screen, integrated screen, sequential screen, contingent screen, or quad screen. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommends the following approach to the evaluation and management of isolated soft markers: (1) we do not recommend diagnostic testing for aneuploidy solely for the evaluation of an isolated soft marker following a negative serum or cell-free DNA screening result (GRADE 1B); (2) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, echogenic bowel, urinary tract dilation, or shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening with cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive (GRADE 1B); (3) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated thickened nuchal fold or isolated absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening through cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive or diagnostic testing via amniocentesis, depending on clinical circumstances and patient preference (GRADE 1B); (4) for pregnant people with no previous aneuploidy screening and isolated choroid plexus cysts, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 18 and a discussion of options for noninvasive aneuploidy screening with cell-free DNA or quad screen if cell-free DNA is unavailable or cost-prohibitive (GRADE 1C); (5) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and an isolated echogenic intracardiac focus, we recommend no further evaluation as this finding is a normal variant of no clinical importance with no indication for fetal echocardiography, follow-up ultrasound imaging, or postnatal evaluation (GRADE 1B); (6) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and isolated fetal echogenic bowel, urinary tract dilation, or shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation (GRADE 1B); (7) for pregnant people with negative serum screening results and isolated thickened nuchal fold or absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend counseling to estimate the probability of trisomy 21 and discussion of options for no further aneuploidy evaluation, noninvasive aneuploidy screening through cell-free DNA, or diagnostic testing via amniocentesis, depending on clinical circumstances and patient preference (GRADE 1B); (8) for pregnant people with negative cell-free DNA screening results and isolated thickened nuchal fold or absent or hypoplastic nasal bone, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation (GRADE 1B); (9) for pregnant people with negative serum or cell-free DNA screening results and isolated choroid plexus cysts, we recommend no further aneuploidy evaluation, as this finding is a normal variant of no clinical importance with no indication for follow-up ultrasound imaging or postnatal evaluation (GRADE 1C); (10) for fetuses with isolated echogenic bowel, we recommend an evaluation for cystic fibrosis and fetal cytomegalovirus infection and a third-trimester ultrasound examination for reassessment and evaluation of growth (GRADE 1C); (11) for fetuses with an isolated single umbilical artery, we recommend no additional evaluation for aneuploidy, regardless of whether results of previous aneuploidy screening were low risk or testing was declined. We recommend a third-trimester ultrasound examination to evaluate growth and consideration of weekly antenatal fetal surveillance beginning at 36 0/7 weeks of gestation (GRADE 1C); (12) for fetuses with isolated urinary tract dilation A1, we recommend an ultrasound examination at ≥32 weeks of gestation to determine if postnatal pediatric urology or nephrology follow-up is needed. For fetuses with urinary tract dilation A2-3, we recommend an individualized follow-up ultrasound assessment with planned postnatal follow-up (GRADE 1C); (13) for fetuses with isolated shortened humerus, femur, or both, we recommend a third-trimester ultrasound examination for reassessment and evaluation of growth (GRADE 1C).

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis for translocation carriers-YES please or NO go?

INTRODUCTION: The presence of an unbalanced familial translocation can be reliably assessed in the cytotrophoblast of chorionic villi. However, carriers of a balanced translocation often decline invasive testing. This study aimed to investigate whether an unbalanced translocation can also be diagnosed in cell free DNA by whole-genome non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Pregnant women carrying a fetus with an unbalanced familial translocation, for whom NIPS as well as microarray data were available, were included in this retrospective assessment. NIPS was performed in the course of the TRIDENT study. RESULTS: In 12 cases, both NIPS and microarray data were available. In 10 of 12 cases the unbalanced translocation was correctly identified by NIPS without prior knowledge on parental translocation. One was missed because the fetal fraction was too low. One was missed because of technical restrictions in calling 16p gains. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the hypothesis that routine NIPS may be used for prenatal diagnosis of unbalanced inheritance of familial translocations, especially with prior knowledge of the translocation allowing focused examination of the involved chromosomal regions. Our study showed that routine shallow sequencing designed for aneuploidy detection in cell free DNA may be sufficient for higher resolution NIPS, if specialized copy number software is used and if sufficient fetal fraction is present.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prenatal Aneuploidy Screening and Diagnostic Testing from Korean Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine: (1) Prenatal Aneuploidy Screening.

In 2019, the Korean Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine developed the first Korean clinical practice guidelines for prenatal aneuploidy screening and diagnostic testing. These guidelines were developed by adapting established clinical practice guidelines in other countries that were searched systematically, and the guidelines aim to assist in decision making of healthcare providers providing prenatal care and to be used as a source for education and communication with pregnant women in Korea. This article delineates clinical practice guidelines specifically for maternal serum screening for fetal aneuploidy and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening. A total of 19 key questions (12 for maternal serum and 7 for cfDNA screening) were defined. The main recommendations are: 1) Pregnant women should be informed of common fetal aneuploidy that can be detected, risks for chromosomal abnormality according to the maternal age, detection rate and false positive rate for common fetal aneuploidy with each screening test, limitations, as well as the benefits and risks of invasive diagnostic testing, 2) It is ideal to give counseling about prenatal aneuploidy screening and diagnostic testing at the first prenatal visit, and counseling is recommended to be given early in pregnancy, 3) All pregnant women should be informed about maternal serum screening regardless of their age, 4) cfDNA screening can be used for the screening of trisomy 21, 18, 13 and sex-chromosome aneuploidy. It is not recommended for the screening of microdeletion, 5) The optimal timing of cfDNA screening is 10 weeks of gestation and beyond, and 6) cfDNA screening is not recommended for women with multiple gestations. The guideline was reviewed and approved by the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.

The personal utility of cfDNA screening: Pregnant patients' experiences with cfDNA screening and views on expanded cfDNA panels.

Prenatal cell-free DNA screening (cfDNA) provides more genetic risk information about the fetus than has ever been possible. At the same time, the rapid expansion of new cfDNA panels raises important questions about how to structure patient-centered discussions that best support patients' decision-making about its use. To address this question, we conducted interviews with pregnant patients to identify decision-making needs and preferences with respect to cfDNA in patient-centered healthcare discussions, given its evolving capability to identify a range of fetal variants. Personal utility was a core concept guiding decision-making. Participants spoke of how their deeply personal values and beliefs about maternal responsibility, actionability, and tolerance of uncertainty framed their view of the personal utility of cfDNA screening. While discussing their notions of personal utility with their healthcare provider, participants also had concerns about potential ramifications for the provider-patient relationship and shared decision-making when disclosing values and preferences regarding disability, quality of life, and termination-particularly as it becomes possible to identify variants with different disease-associated severity and outcomes. The complexities associated with the introduction of genomics in prenatal care present unique challenges to structuring effective shared decision-making discussions between patients and their healthcare providers. While efforts are underway to determine how to best educate patients about the medical aspects of cfDNA, it is equally important to develop approaches in healthcare communication that enable patients to make informed, values-based decisions about the use of cfDNA and its impact on their pregnancy.

Factors associated with common and atypical chromosome abnormalities after positive combined first-trimester screening in Chinese women: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: When cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing is used as a secondary screening tool following combined first-trimester screening (cFTS), cFTS is used to estimate the prior risk for chromosome abnormalities. This study aimed to assess the factors that are associated with common and atypical abnormalities following cFTS, including cFTS risk, advanced maternal age, increased nuchal translucency (NT) ≥3.5 mm, and abnormal levels of serum markers. METHODS: We reviewed a historical cohort of 1855 Chinese women carrying singleton pregnancies with a positive cFTS [at a threshold of 1:250 for trisomy (T) 21 or 1:180 for T18] in one public hospital over a five-year period. All chromosome abnormalities were confirmed by invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD) with karyotyping, with or without array comparative genomic hybridization. Using multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, we determined the parameters that were associated with common and atypical abnormalities. RESULTS: Overall, the prevalence of common and atypical abnormalities was 6.2 and 1.2%, respectively, and the prevalence increased with the risk of T21 by cFTS. In pregnancies with a risk of T21 > 1 in 100, a high risk of both T21 and T18, an increased NT, or a pregnancy-associated plasma A (PAPP-A) level <  0.2 multiple of medians (MoM), the prevalence of common abnormalities was 12.2, 64.7, 25.5 and 33.8%, respectively, while that of atypical abnormalities was 1.6, 3.9, 4.2, and 7.4%, respectively. In the multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, out of these four factors, only two (increased NT and PAPP_A <  0.2 MoM) were significant predictors of common and atypical abnormalities, respectively. Of all positive cFTS pregnancies, 50.4% did not have any of these four factors, and the prevalence of common and atypical abnormalities was 1.1 and 0.6%, respectively. There were three atypical abnormalities, all of which were mosaicism, and they were detected among women with IPD alone. The ages of these women were ≥ 35 years. All three pregnancies were continued after proper counseling. After giving birth, only one child had mild abnormalities, while the other two were phenotypically normal. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified factors associated with common and atypical abnormalities after cFTS. These factors can be used to estimate the prior risk for these abnormalities to help with post-cFTS counseling in terms of choosing between cfDNA testing and IPD.

Autoimmune disorders but not heparin are associated with cell-free fetal DNA test failure.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested a possible association between heparin treatment at the time of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing and a non-reportable result. However, these studies lack of proper methodology and had a low level of proof to firmly incriminate heparin. Our objective was to investigate further the relationship between heparin treatment and cfDNA test results. METHODS: Two complementary approaches were used for the demonstration. First, we conducted a retrospective analysis of a cohort of patients with a singleton pregnancy, screened for aneuploidies by using cfDNA, but with a non-reportable cfDNA result. We included patients between 2013 and 2016 including the patients from the DEPOSA study as controls. CfDNA testing was performed by massive parallel sequencing by using a whole-genome approach. A multiple logistic regression was used to account for the influence of the variables included. Second, we performed in vitro experiments on mimic samples containing increased concentrations of heparin. RESULTS: Of 9867 singleton pregnancies tested during the inclusion period, 58 (0.59%) had a non-reportable result and were compared to 295 control patients. Fifteen (25.9%) and 20 (6.8%) patients were treated with heparin in the group with a non-reportable cfDNA result and with a successful assay, respectively. In multivariable analysis, an increased calculated risk at the first-trimester combined screening (OR 28.8 CI 9.76-85.15, p < 0.001), maternal weight (OR 1.03, CI 1.01-1.06, p = 0.01), and the presence of an autoimmune disease (OR 10.38, CI 1.62-66.53, p = 0.01) were the only characteristics associated with a non-reportable result. In vitro experiments showed that heparin had no impact on fetal fraction measurement or the final result, no matter what the dose tested. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment by heparin had no impact on cfDNA screening test for aneuploidies, while the presence of an autoimmune disorder is an independent predictor of a non-reportable result.

What would be missed in the first trimester if nuchal translucency measurement is replaced by cell free DNA foetal aneuploidy screening?

The aim of this study was to evaluate which chromosomal abnormalities in our cohort of foetuses with increased nuchal translucency (NT) in the first trimester of pregnancy could be detected by cell free (cf)DNA screening as well. There were 775 singleton pregnancies referred for cytogenetic testing due to an increased NT (≥3.0 mm). Chromosome aberrations were investigated using karyotyping or chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA). Karyotyping had been chosen for foetal cytogenetic testing by 446 patients, and CMA by 329 patients. Common aneuploidies (trisomies 21, 18, 13 and sex aneuploidies) were detected in 2.2% (99/446) and 1.8% (59/329) cases, respectively. In 329 with CMA testing, clinically significant copy number variations (CNVs) other than common aneuploidies were detected in 2.7% cases; among these, five had a pathogenic microscopic CNV, which could have been detected by karyotyping. There were four cases (1.2%) having a pathogenic submicroscopic CNV, which could have been missed by karyotyping. The total CMA detection rate (23.4%) was not statistically different from that (24.2%) by karyotyping (p > .05). The percentage of chromosomal aberrations, which cfDNA screening would miss in patients with increased NT in the first trimester, might be the same as in those with normal NT. Impact statement What is already known about this topic? First trimester NT is a powerful marker for screening for common aneuploidies. cfDNA screening is more accurate than any standard screening with NT. The need of NT in the era of prenatal screening using cfDNA is debated. What does this study add? An increased NT did not identify any additional aneuploidies that were detected by cfDNA screening. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The percentage of chromosomal aberrations which cfDNA screening would miss in patients with increased NT might be the same as in those with normal NT.